Times of Trenton Letters to the Editor - Jan. 1

480 West State Street before its demolition in November. Though it had deteriorated in recent years, this circa-1891 Victorian house once belonged to Mayor Daniel J. Bechtel, a former mayor of Trenton.Courtesy of John Hatch

Make city safe and investors will come

The article “The city’s past in peril of decay” (Dec. 30) states that historic, abandoned houses at 480 and 482 West State Street in Trenton should not have been demolished because of decay, drug dealers and squatters. There are many more beautiful houses on West State Street and in West Trenton that could have the same future problems. Asking for government funds to save them will never be successful; spending is being reduced and will continue to be for a number of years.

Trenton is our state capital, but it cannot be rebuilt by taxing its residents. The only solution is private money. We have to make West Trenton a desirable place to live — not just during the daytime, but also after the governor and the legislators leave in the afternoon.

Investors’ biggest fear is that, with more crime, property values will drop. We need buyers who want to invest and live there. I applaud the people who do. Of course, I suspect most lock their doors and stay at home during the evening hours. If crime gets worse, more of them will leave. People with money can afford to live where it is safe.

The only solution is to cut the crime. So far, in 2012, there have been 24 murders in Trenton. We should double the police force, not cut it. The State Police can help.
We need local police officers who live in Trenton. The FBI has no interest in making Trenton safe, even though I believe some criminal operations in the city are national in scope.

If we make Trenton a desirable place to live, investments will follow. We could have the same success as Park Slope in Brooklyn, N.Y. The value of the houses would quadruple. The tax base would grow and help solve many of Trenton’s budget woes.

-- Don Swanson,
West Windsor

Washington lawmakers are serving themselves

I realize that there are no easy answers to the United States deficit crisis, but the squabbling that has been going on between the Republicans and the Democrats is an embarrassment to the citizens of the United States and demonstrates to the world our vulnerability.

For too long, our House and Senate have sold their souls to the highest bidder, such as the NRA (National Rifle Association) and oil and pharmaceutical companies, to name a few of the special-interest groups that have their hands in the pockets of our elected officials.

We talk about real Americans — where are they in Washington, D.C.? All I see are greedy, selfish, egotistical, self-serving politicians who have stopped serving the people of this country.

We are in desperate need of leadership and innovative, forward thinking to get us out of this recession/depression.

United we stand or divided we shall fall.

-- Bonnie Cooper,
Ewing

Don’t take a chance on one lottery bid

Privatization should be reserved for when the government cannot perform a particular function well on its own. In the case of our award-winning lottery system (“1 is the loneliest number in bid to run lottery — Treasury to award a $12M contract if in ‘best interests,’” Dec. 29), we have one of the most efficient operations in the world.

For a plan that was troubling from the start, the fact that only one bid was submitted in response to a request for proposals (RFP) only increases my concern. This casts further doubt on whether this is a smart move. How do we know we are getting the best deal if we have nothing to compare it to?

When we held a recent hearing on the proposal, the Treasury Department declined to attend, because it said it could not speak publicly about the matter during the RFP process. Well, that process has since concluded and the results are troubling. More details are now warranted.

-- Vincent Prieto,
Secaucus
The writer, a Democrat, represents the 32nd District in the New Jersey General Assembly, where he is budget committee chairman.

Insure gun use

It’s clear that, with hundreds of millions of guns in circulation in the U.S., the idea of somehow eliminating gun violence and killings through regulation and law seems unlikely, given the passion that many have about owning guns for whatever reason.

So how do we protect the right of ownership but regulate use and control at the same time? Eliminating a type of gun will not solve the problem.

Many reasonable suggestions regarding the sale of guns have been proposed and should be considered. If you believe in true market forces as a means to regulate the cost and use of a good or service, perhaps these forces can be considered as a means to regulate gun ownership and use.

If every gun had to be registered with the government, like a car, the owner of each gun would be identified and in a national database. If ownership of a gun required liability insurance, like automobiles, compensation related to damage created as a result of the proper or improper use of that specific gun would at least in part be available and the owner of that gun would be held liable by law for related damages.

A specific gun could not be sold by anyone without proof of insurance for that gun by that specific buyer. The insurance industry would determine the cost of insuring a specific gun owned by a specific individual. The premium would be established based on the individual’s specific ownership risk factors and the unique risk and related characteristics of a specific type of gun. Use of a gun without insurance would result in confiscation. We would then have some degree of control.

-- Joseph Zannoni,
Hamilton

Pull out of Afghanistan

A preponderance of propaganda continues to support pouring financial and human resources into a problem that will never end. At the same time, a plethora of letters protest the destitution of our economy. There are layoffs in all corners of the country. The national debt is rising. The national infrastructure is collapsing. Now, we find that heroin use has almost doubled in New Jersey. In truth, it has more than doubled nationally and its street cost is at an all-time low.

The sources of heroin are Turkey and Afghanistan. Turkey is (supposed to be) allied with the U.S. Afghanistan, as we all know, is controlled by the U.S. military. Why, then, is there more heroin distributed in the U.S. than at any time in history and why are U.S. taxpayers paying to prosecute that war?

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, his brother and many other corrupt Afghan politicians have become very rich. They own real estate in Dubai and Saudi Arabia; I suspect they’re ready to flee as soon as the U.S. finally pulls out, and they’ll be taking with them every U.S. dollar they can get their hands on.

I predict that absolutely nothing that has been done by the U.S. in Afghanistan will exist after our military forces are gone and the Taliban returns.

So, if no other reason is sufficient to end the futility and terminate this war without end and bring all our armed forces home, there is one undeniably inarguable reason to bring our gallant troops home: There is nothing in Iraq and/or Afghanistan that is worth the life of even one U.S. military person.

End the war. Bring them home. And eradicate the poppy fields on the way out.